Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting

FunkyTown

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3723

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Everything posted by FunkyTown

  1. FunkyTown
    Now that's interesting - I proposed something that would have fit your definition of providing the greatest good to the greatest amount of people, and the greatest quality of life and now you're stating that the public should have a right to know. What if the transparently agreed, evidence based, closely monitored objectives would provide greater harm if they were known than if they were unknown? For instance: There is an outbreak of Ebola Zaire in Vancouver. To save the world from a deadly, highly infectious disease, the government must utillize localized nuclear weapons on the airport in Vancouver. Thousands will die if it is done, but billions will die if it is not done. The government acts to protect the greatest number of people with the minimum amount of death. By utilizing transparency, they are going to frighten a lot of people - Are billions of people a single bad cough away from death? Should you tell children they were one decision away from a global pandemic that probably would have killed them and everyone they know?
  2. FunkyTown
    Would it be better to be done secretly, without the public knowing? That would not reduce net happiness index levels at all and would greatly improve the lives of multiple people.
  3. FunkyTown
    I heard you turned 29! Pretty soon you won't be be able to go to YSA!
  4. FunkyTown
    Soul Prism? The Eldritch Stone? The Soul Mirror?
  5. FunkyTown
    I am! Not only that, but I am currently having my hands full getting a double major in Education/Data Analytics combined with my Teaching Degree(As part of my Education degree). They're even talking of having me on as a lecturer afterwards! Eee! How have things been?
  6. FunkyTown
    I missed here. -.-
  7. FunkyTown
    So bless the home, just in case. And check all the plumbing, piping, electrical sockets and foundation, along with checking for asbestos, termites, black mold and anything else you can find. It'll be fine. Heck - I'd buy it, but I'd also assume that the place was on the verge of falling down.
  8. FunkyTown
    I had forgotten how much you make me smile, Ana.
  9. FunkyTown
    That's a good point, and I think I understand where you're going with this, but I have a counterargument: Boobs. Women have them.
  10. FunkyTown
    You mean like a battery? Your cell phone battery does exactly this when you recharge it. If it's to do with heat, just call it an "Endothermic battery".
  11. FunkyTown
    Men are dumb! Actually, I've noticed this issue in Canada, the US, Britain... The YSA aren't dating. And I don't think the issue falls on the women - For some reason, men are retreating from responsibility and I have no theory on why. In the church, this responsibility is a blessing. We shouldn't be facing the same difficulties the rest of the world is. I am a Dad and eternal family is the greatest thing ever.
  12. FunkyTown
    Okay. I'm cautious with this because it really didn't answer my question. What standards are you going to use to judge quality of life? You want to balance quantity of life and quality of life, so a few questions on that are: 1) What defines quality of life? Is it pleasure for the most amount of people with the minimum amount of pain? 2) In terms of allocating resources, how would you define this? For instance: Should a surgeon remove your healthy organs(Which would kill you) if doing so would save 7 sick people and give them functioning, happy lives?
  13. FunkyTown
    Great! So what do you define as 'Collective best interest'? Is it what will allow the largest number of people to live the longest lives? Is it the greatest pleasure with the minimum amount of pain? Is it some third thing that I am not thinking of - And what wins out if there is a conflict between short-term, medium and long-term?
  14. FunkyTown
    I believe this has started to become circular: So Rationality is the standard by which universal truth may be known? I believe you stated 'Not exclusively' before. Could you care to elaborate on what other standards you will apply?
  15. FunkyTown
    Fair enough. I am simply asking - As any student would ask a teacher who is assessing their work - How you plan on doing that. You have admitted that you have no framework by which my responses will be judged, nor do you think any framework is currently possible. I have asked repeatedly, "How will you know that you know the essence of right when it is presented?" And you have stated that you have no way of knowing. If you have no way of knowing, you have no way of assessing. Were you a student and a teacher said, "I want you to make an argument that I will be assessing. I will not share the assessment standards, nor do I think there is any reasonable way such a standard could be reached. I will simply respond according to a whim I admit is arbitrary." How well do you think one could prepare for that argument?
  16. FunkyTown
    So you're saying that your base assumption is that I am wrong and do not have objective truth? In your words, "Exactly my point."
  17. FunkyTown
    "Let he who has ears, let him hear." - Fault isn't really applied here. You have to decide yourself how you will know truth when you see it.
  18. FunkyTown
    I could, but you have no way of knowing whether or not I have told you the truth, nor do you have any way of critiquing my analysis since you have no underlying framework by which you can see or interpret the world. Imagine a sighted man speaking to a man blind from birth. The blind man says, "No man in history had sight, nor is there evidence it will ever exist." He dismisses those who claim to have it as delusional, or liars, or both. "Ah hah!" he says, when someone can not describe what an Axolotl is. "One would think a sighted person could describe exactly what one of these strange walking fish are, since they are so odd they would stick in their mind." or "Oh hoh! You cannot describe the physical underpinnings of rods to cones in eyes that allow them to work. Clearly, if eyesight existed, you would understand such an important part of how such a thing works." In that case, the blind man's very dogma blinds him in a very different set to his physical impairment. Until the blind man comes to terms with the idea that someone might have sight, and has decided that there are standards by which he may verify this("Right. What do you see behind you, three hundred yards directly back and 3 yards to the right?"), it is an exercise in futility for both of them. The blind man isn't a seeker in that case. He's simply looking to reaffirm his bias.
  19. FunkyTown
    Is that what you think I said?
  20. FunkyTown
    Then why ask about it? Someone could hand you the objective truth - The answer to life, the universe and everything, and all you would get out of it... All you would gain... Is the chance to either massage your ego by arguing or, in the case of an argument you cannot counter, a chance to feel frustrated and angry that the person you are speaking with does not agree with you. Neither of those sound particularly appealing to me. You claim to be a seeker - One who seeks after truth - But the 'truths' you claim to have are that you have no truth, nor is there any framework by which you may accept a truth given to you by another. Like a boat in the tempest, unmoored, you are tossed to and fro without any grounding or anchor. Others can help someone in that position, but you have to at least recognize what a rope is for you to catch one thrown to you.
  21. FunkyTown
    I will and would love to, as soon as you answer my original question: How will you know that you know the essence of right when it is presented?
  22. FunkyTown
    And now, we're in the crux of your argument: You do not know objective reality. You also do not have(Or know that you use) the yardstick by which objective truths can be known. So how do you know the objective truth that nobody else ever did or ever will know the objective truths of right and wrong? You have neither the yardstick of measuring such a thing, nor the thing itself to know if someone else possessed it.
  23. FunkyTown
    They believe that they know the truth because they believe that right and wrong are universal truths. You, as well, indicated it is a universal truth when you suggested that we will get 'closer and closer' as we evolve as a society. Are you changing your mind on that? Will we continue to evolve towards truth(Which indicates a universal truth to right and wrong) or will we not evolve, because right and wrong are merely societal constructs, in your mind?
  24. FunkyTown
    Ah! Then we are in a conundrum and we are now back to the very first question I asked: How will you know if you know the essence of truth? Because either you believe we are incapable of knowing universal truth or we are capable. If we are capable, then there must be a measuring stick for deciding universal truth. What is that measuring stick, in your estimation?
  25. FunkyTown
    Perfect, then you have established a way of knowing universal truth: Rationality. And when I asked how you would know a universal truth, you claimed: So you agree that we can know right from wrong and we can know if we apply rationality?